Start a lab

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the full policy envelope (no privileged services, no host mounts but the lab folder, no Docker socket, 1 CPU/512m caps, no internet), the consequence (refused with the reason), and the networking gotcha (host can't reach its ports - use lab_exec from inside). The annotations only carry the safety flags; this text carries the real behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The policy constraint is front-loaded and the confirmation requirement is placed last, which is sensible. It is a dense single paragraph with no wasted sentences, though the run-on policy clause is slightly heavy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers behavior, policy limits, failure mode, networking caveat, and a human-confirmation step. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'lab' parameter is already documented as the name from list_labs. The description adds no further syntax or format detail about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('a lab') and immediately scopes it to lab mode's policy. An agent can distinguish it from lab_down, lab_status, and the many container/compose siblings without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear prerequisite - confirm with the person first, stating the services and images it will run - which is real usage guidance for a mutating tool. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g. compose_up) or explicitly state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.